DOCSLIB.ORG

Administration of Justice in the Republic of Armenia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Administration of Justice in the Republic of Armenia Administration of Justice in the Republic of Armenia December 2012 The administration of justice in Armenia has been of concern for many years and remains a serious issue. Analysis founded on comprehensive monitoring conducted by local human rights defenders indicates that key issues like lack of judicial independence, use of torture and ill-treatment, and poor conditions and overcrowding in penitentiaries remain outstanding and urgent. In late 2010 and 2011 political prisoners incarcerated after events in March 2008 were released. Nevertheless, specific cases of politically motivated persecution continue. In 2010 the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) together with its member organisation in Armenia, the Civil Society Institute (CSI), and other Armenian NGOs, released a briefing paper outlining serious concerns regarding the functioning of the justice system in the Republic of Armenia. Concerns included violations of the right to a fair trial encompassing also the abuse of pre-trial detention, violations of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defense, and the use of illegally obtained testimony secured through torture and ill treatment. These concerns were also at the center of discussions during the 2010 International Forum on Justice organised by FIDH in Armenia, as well as the recommendations transmitted directly to the Armenian President and the Minister of Justice. Two years on, FIDH, CSI and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee have conducted a thorough assessment of recent developments in this field. Sadly, significant improvements are still badly needed to shift the general pattern of human rights breaches in this context. Moreover, the individual cases previously highlighted by our organisations have still not been resolved. The current briefing highlights these deficiencies in six key areas, namely torture and ill treatment, political prisoners, investigations into March 2008 abuses, judicial independence, juvenile justice and the system for early conditional release. In doing so, it will provide factual examples to illustrate concerns, before making a series of recommendations to the Armenian authorities to remedy this situation. Our organisations, the International Federation for Human Rights, Civil Society Institute and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee express our deep concern about the issues raised in this briefing. We call upon the authorities to eliminate violations in the administration of justice 1 and ensure the establishment of an independent judiciary and the rule of law. These steps are fundamental to the further democratic development of Armenia. Torture and Ill-treatment As highlighted, once again, by the UN Committee against Torture in considering Armenia’s third periodic report in May 2012, the definition of torture in the Armenian Criminal Code1 has still not been brought into compliance with the UN Convention against Torture. Moreover, as mentioned in the report from its December 2011 visit to Armenia (published 3 October 2012), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) "[continues to be] concerned to note that the bulk of the recommendations made after the 2010 visit with respect to life-sentenced prisoners remain unimplemented".2 Most acts of torture perpetrated in Armenia are inflicted by law enforcement officials (usually police officers) in a bid to obtain confessions during arrest and interrogation. In practice, Armenian courts generally fail to act upon allegations of torture and/or ill-treatment that are made in the course of proceedings. Police mistreatment is overwhelmingly unreported due to fear of retaliation, and where such allegations are reported effective investigations are extremely rare. The factual circumstances surrounding cases of torture and ill-treatment are usually only subject to a higher degree of public scrutiny from human rights defenders and the general public where they have resulted in a victim’s death (e.g. the cases of Levon Gulyan and Vahan Khalafyan). The independence and effectiveness of investigations into allegations of torture are compromised because the police themselves are charged with conducting such enquiries. A Special Investigation Service (SIS) was established in 2007 to specialise in investigating cases involving possible abuses by public officials. However, the prosecutor’s office does not send all allegations of torture to the SIS for investigation; instead police investigators continue to handle most cases themselves. Consequently, communications about torture continue to be investigated within the framework of the very entity to which the perpetrators of torture themselves belong. Notably, the prosecutor's office oversees the lawfulness of inquests and preliminary investigations, as well as pursuing charges relating to such inquiries in court, thus creating a conflict of interest. These functions should therefore need to be separated and vested in different bodies. The same prosecutor supervises the legality of investigations, approves indictments submitted by the investigators upon the completion of the investigations and defends the relevant charges in the court. The same prosecutor therefore exercises three different powers relating to the same case, namely: supervision, approval and defence. This fact creates a situation in which prosecutors lack sufficient impetus to prevent abuses during investigations, due to the fact that they are reliant on the evidence thereby produced. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s disincentive to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence is further compounded by the fact that 1See Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, Article 119. 2Report to the Armenian Government on the visit to Armenia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 5 to 7 December 2011 available at: http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/arm/2012-23-inf-eng.htm. See the recommendations of the CPT after its visit to Armenia from 10 to 21 May 2010 on http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/arm/2011-24-inf- eng.htm 2 accepting such evidence requires acknowledgement that the prosecution has failed to properly carry out its supervisory functions during the investigation. The following cases represent some of those that have managed to make it into the public arena, thus facilitating a glimpse of the illegal practices carried out by state officials in the administration of justice in Armenia – practices that have been known to escalate into death in custody. They also highlight the inadequate investigative and judicial responses with which such cases have been met. The Levon Gulyan case Twelfth May 2012 marked the 5th anniversary of the death of Levon Gulyan, a witness in a murder case who died in police custody in 2007. Mr. Gulyan’s case is symbolic of other such cases due to the endless trail of failed though persistent attempts to obtain justice for this death. Indeed, to date, no state official has been held responsible for Mr. Gulyan’s demise. Levon Gulyan died on 12 May 2007 after falling from a second floor window of the police headquarters in which he was being held. Officers insisted that Mr. Gulyan jumped from the window in a bid either to commit suicide or escape. Nevertheless, having had Mr. Gulyan’s body returned to them after his death, members of Levon Gulyan's family discovered bruises on his body indicating that he had been a victim of violence. Lawyers present at the forensic medical examination of Levon Gulyan's body further stated that it evidenced signs of violence. The investigation into this case was opened in 2007, and has since then been terminated several times by the investigative body only to be reopened on the basis of subsequent court decisions. On 8 February 2012, the Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Armenia closed the criminal case on Levon Gulyan's death for the fourth time. In so doing it breached the decision made by the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia on 27 August 2010 that it should "eliminate the violations of the rights and the freedoms of a person during the pre- trial investigation", and ran counter to strong civil society demands for accountability in this case.3 On 22 February 2012 the representatives of Levon Gulyan’s legal successor petitioned the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR), demanding recognition of violations under Article 2 (right to life), Article 5 (right to freedom and personal integrity), and Article 13 (right to effective justice) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Stepan Hovakimyan case Stepan Hovakimyan and Vahram Kerobyan were both charged with theft, occurred at the Moscow Cinema hall in Yerevan in January 2010. Both were charged with violations of Article 177(3)(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia and detained in pre-trial detention for two and a half years. This detention was based solely on the confession of Hovhakimyan – a confession that he later stated had been elicited through the use of torture. The detainees did not obtain a judicial pronouncement on their guilt until 25 September 2012; Stepan Hovakimyan was found guilty and sentenced to three years imprisonment, while 3‘Armenia : FIDH, CSI and the Armenian Helsinki Committee call on the authorities to investigate and re-open Levon Gulyan’s case’, FIDH Press Release, 18 May 2011, available at: http://fidh.org/Armenia-FIDH-CSI-and- the-Armenian. 3 Vahram Kerobyan was acquitted. The principal evidence founding
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Armenia Page 1 of 13
    Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Armenia Page 1 of 13 Armenia Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2006 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 6, 2007 Armenia, with a population of approximately 3.2 million, is a republic. The constitution provides for a popularly elected president (Robert Kocharian) and a unicameral legislature (National Assembly). A constitutional referendum in 2005 and presidential and National Assembly elections in 2003 were seriously flawed and did not meet international standards. The country has a multiparty political system. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces; members of the security forces committed a number of human rights abuses. The government's human rights record remained poor, and serious problems remained. Citizens were not able freely to change their government; authorities beat pretrial detainees; the national security service and the national police force acted with impunity; authorities engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention; prison conditions were cramped and unhealthy, although slowly improving; authorities imposed restrictions on citizens' privacy, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Journalists practiced self-censorship, and the government and laws restricted religious freedom. Violence against women and spousal abuse were problems, as were trafficking in persons, discrimination against persons with disabilities, and societal harassment of homosexuals. There were reports of forced labor. There were some improvements during the year. The implementation of constitutional reforms ratified in 2005 led to some increase in judicial independence and for the first time gave citizens direct access to the Constitutional Court. Penalties for trafficking were toughened and a court for the first time imposed financial, as well as criminal, penalties on traffickers.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2016
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics October 2019, NCJ 251922 Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers, 2016 – Statistical Tables Connor Brooks, BJS Statistician s of the end of fscal-year 2016, federal FIGURE 1 agencies in the United States and Distribution of full-time federal law enforcement U.S. territories employed about 132,000 ofcers, by department or branch, 2016 Afull-time law enforcement ofcers. Federal law enforcement ofcers were defned as any federal Department of ofcers who were authorized to make arrests Homeland Security and carry frearms. About three-quarters of Department of Justice federal law enforcement ofcers (about 100,000) Other executive- provided police protection as their primary branch agencies function. Four in fve federal law enforcement ofcers, regardless of their primary function, Independent agencies worked for either the Department of Homeland · Security (47% of all ofcers) or the Department Judicial branch Tables Statistical of Justice (33%) (fgure 1, table 1). Legislative branch Findings in this report are from the 2016 0 10 20 30 40 50 Census of Federal Law Enforcement Ofcers Percent (CFLEO). Te Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted the census, collecting data on Note: See table 1 for counts and percentages. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of Federal Law 83 agencies. Of these agencies, 41 were Ofces Enforcement Ofcers, 2016. of Inspectors General, which provide oversight of federal agencies and activities. Te tables in this report provide statistics on the number, functions, and demographics of federal law enforcement ofcers. Highlights In 2016, there were about 100,000 full-time Between 2008 and 2016, the Amtrak Police federal law enforcement ofcers in the United had the largest percentage increase in full-time States and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports
    Flash Report 01/2017 Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and country reports EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Flash Report 01/2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 01/2017 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Matleena Engblom France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Gyorgy Kiss Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Barend Barentsen Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Polonca Končar Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Iceland Inga Björg Hjaltadóttir Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Norway Helga Aune Lill Egeland Flash Report 01/2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense
    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 89 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter Winter 1999 Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Kent Roach, Four Models of the Criminal Process, 89 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 671 (1998-1999) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/99/8902-0671 THM JOURNAL OF QMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 89, No. 2 Copyright 0 1999 by Northwestem University. School of Law Psisd in USA. CRIMINOLOGY FOUR MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS KENT ROACH* I. INTRODUCTION Ever since Herbert Packer published "Two Models of the Criminal Process" in 1964, much thinking about criminal justice has been influenced by the construction of models. Models pro- vide a useful way to cope with the complexity of the criminal pro- cess. They allow details to be simplified and common themes and trends to be highlighted. "As in the physical and social sciences, [models present] a hypothetical but coherent scheme for testing the evidence" produced by decisions made by thousands of actors in the criminal process every day.2 Unlike the sciences, however, it is not possible or desirable to reduce the discretionary and hu- manistic systems of criminal justice to a single truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice for Children: Mexico
    ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: MEXICO This report was produced by White & Case LLP in November 2013 but may have been subsequently edited by Child Rights International Network (CRIN). CRIN takes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in the report. I. What is the legal status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)? ​ A. What is the status of the CRC and other relevant ratified international instruments in the national legal system? ​ The CRC was signed by Mexico on 26 January 1990, ratified on 21 November 1990, and published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) on 25 ​ ​ January 1991. In addition to the CRC, Mexico has ratified the Optional Protocols relating to the involvement of children in armed conflict and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. All treaties signed by the President of Mexico, with the approval of the Senate, are deemed to constitute the supreme law of Mexico, together with the Constitution and the laws of the Congress of the Union.1 The CRC is therefore part of national law and may serve as a legal basis in any proceedings before the national courts. It is also part of the supreme law of Mexico as a whole and must be implemented at federal level and in all the individual states.2 B. Does the CRC take precedence over national law The CRC has been interpreted to take precedence over national laws, but not the Constitution. According to doctrinal thesis LXXVII/99 of November 1999, international treaties are ranked second immediately after the Constitution and ahead of federal and local laws.3 On several occasions, Mexico’s Supreme Court has stated that international ​ treaties take precedence over national law, mainly in the case of human rights.4 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia Covering the Period of January to December 2018 Armenia Bias-Motivated Speech a 15-Year-Old Was Stabbed in Yerevan on 1 April
    Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex People in Armenia covering the period of January to December 2018 Armenia Bias-motivated speech A 15-year-old was stabbed in Yerevan on 1 April. The perpetrator Former social affairs minister and current member of the told the police that he had assumed the victim was gay. The parliamentary human rights committee Gevorg Petrosyan parents dropped the charges, to prevent further bullying against (Tsarukyan Faction) said in March, that treating people differently their son. on SOGI grounds is not discrimination. MP Vardan Bostanjyan (“Prosperous Armenia” Party) compared LGBT people to viruses Following a series of LGBTI-phobic attacks in the first few months and suggested that the ‘virus’ should be isolated to avoid making of the year, LGBTI activists and allies protested in front of the other people sick. Government Prosecutor’s Office on 5 April, calling for immediate and thorough investigations. In July, the justice minister Artak Zeynalyan (Yelk Faction, Hanrapetutyun party) publicly reacted to a homophobic A member of Right Side NGO’s staff was threatened and insulted Facebook post featuring a photo of him, saying he “wants to by military service workers during a visit to the Arabkir military legalise “faggots”. It also called on supporters to “join our fight”. commissariat station on 11 April. Zeynalyan’s ignored the offensive language and instead denied that he was working on any legislative initiatives related to the On 15 April, a trans woman living in Yerevan was attacked. Her Criminal Code. throat was cut and she required hospitalisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Police Department
    Seattle Police Department Adrian Diaz, Interim Chief of Police (206) 684-5577 http://www.seattle.gov/police/ Department Overview The Seattle Police Department (SPD) addresses crime, enforces laws, and enhances public safety by delivering respectful, professional, and dependable police services. SPD divides operations into five precincts. These precincts define east, west, north, south, and southwest patrol areas, with a police station in each area. The department's organizational model places neighborhood-based emergency response services at its core, allowing SPD the greatest flexibility in managing public safety. Under this model, neighborhood-based personnel in each precinct assume responsibility for public safety management, primary crime prevention and law enforcement. Precinct-based detectives investigate property crimes and crimes involving juveniles, whereas detectives in centralized units located at SPD headquarters downtown and elsewhere conduct follow-up investigations into other types of crimes. Other parts of the department function to train, equip, and provide policy guidance, human resources, communications, and technology support to those delivering direct services to the public. Interim Police Chief Adrian Diaz has committed the department to five focus areas to anchor itself throughout the on-going work around the future of community safety: • Re-envisioning Policing - Engage openly in a community-led process of designing the role the department should play in community safety • Humanization - Prioritize the sanctity
    [Show full text]
  • Mission in Armenia 29 March to 3 April 2008
    Mission in Armenia 29 March to 3 April 2008 June 2008 - N°499/2 Mission in Armenia, 29 March to 3 April 2008 FOREWORD Alerted by both the "Democracy in Armenia" group and the Civil Society Institute (an FIDH affiliate) to the violent repression that followed the presidential elections in this country in February 2008, the undersigned lawyers and jurist were mandated by the President of the Paris Bar Association (M. le Bâtonnier de l’Ordre des Avocats de Paris) and the International Union of Lawyers (l’Union Internationale des Avocats) on one hand and, on the other hand, the FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights). The mission visited Yerevan from 29 March to 3 April to report on the situation of the right to defend oneself and the right to freedoms in the Republic of ARMENIA following the events that took place in February and March 2008. INTRODUCTION Before considering the legal and juridical context of the mission's work, it is appropriate to recall some chronological milestones to put into perspective the current situation in Armenia and its evolution, seventeen years after the independence of the Republic of Armenia was proclaimed in the Southern Caucasus. - 21 September, 1991: the Republic of Armenia becomes independent following a referendum. - October 1991: Election by universal suffrage of Mr. Levon TER-PETROSIAN, who becomes the first President of the Republic of Armenia. - 1992-1994: Fighting in the autonomous region of Nagorno-Karabakh between the opposing Armenian self- defence forces and the Azerbaijan armed forces. A cease-fire comes into force on 14 May 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning Law Is
    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING LAW IS "MAN MADE" IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY'S NEEDS LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE 1)WHETHER IT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL" 2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED "PROCEDURAL LAW") I. Thomas Jefferson: "The study of the law qualifies a man to be useful to himself, to his neighbors, and to the public." II. Ask Several Students to give their definition of "Law." A. Even after years and thousands of dollars, "LAW" still is not easy to define B. What does law Consist of ? Law consists of enforceable rule governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and their society. 1. Students Need to Understand. a. The law is a set of general ideas b. When these general ideas are applied, a judge cannot fit a case to suit a rule; he must fit (or find) a rule to suit the unique case at hand. c. The judge must also supply legitimate reasons for his decisions. C. So, How was the Law Created. The law considered in this text are "man made" law. This law can (and will) change over time in response to the changes and needs of society. D. Example. Grandma, who is 87 years old, walks into a pawn shop. She wants to sell her ring that has been in the family for 200 years. Grandma asks the dealer, "how much will you give me for this ring." The dealer, in good faith, tells Grandma he doesn't know what kind of metal is in the ring, but he will give her $150.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR HISTORY, CULTURE AND MODERNITY www.history-culture-modernity.org Published by: Uopen Journals Copyright: © The Author(s). Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence eISSN: 2213-0624 The Cost of Memorializing: Analyzing Armenian Genocide Memorials and Commemorations in the Republic of Armenia and in the Diaspora Sabrina Papazian HCM 7: 55–86 DOI: 10.18352/hcm.534 Abstract In April of 1965 thousands of Armenians gathered in Yerevan and Los Angeles, demanding global recognition of and remembrance for the Armenian Genocide after fifty years of silence. Since then, over 200 memorials have been built around the world commemorating the vic- tims of the Genocide and have been the centre of hundreds of marches, vigils and commemorative events. This article analyzes the visual forms and semiotic natures of three Armenian Genocide memorials in Armenia, France and the United States and the commemoration prac- tices that surround them to compare and contrast how the Genocide is being memorialized in different Armenian communities. In doing so, this article questions the long-term effects commemorations have on an overall transnational Armenian community. Ultimately, it appears that calls for Armenian Genocide recognition unwittingly categorize the global Armenian community as eternal victims, impeding the develop- ment of both the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Keywords: Armenian Genocide, commemoration, cultural heritage, diaspora, identity, memorials HCM 2019, VOL. 7 Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/202155 12:33:22PM via free access PAPAZIAN Introduction On 24 April 2015, the hundredth anniversary of the commencement of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians around the world collectively mourned for and remembered their ancestors who had lost their lives in the massacres and deportations of 1915.1 These commemorations took place in many forms, including marches, candlelight vigils, ceremo- nial speeches and cultural performances.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviving Church
    JUNE 4, 2011 MirTHE rARoMENr IAN -Spe ctator Volume LXXXI, NO. 47, Issue 4191 $ 2.00 NEWS IN BRIEF The First English Language Armenian Weekly in the United States Pepsi Bottling Plant Serge Sargisian: Opens in Yerevan Legendary Singer and Philanthropist Armenia Will Not YEREVAN (Radiolur) — The Pepsi Cola Bottler Charles Aznavour Is Honored in New York Armenia Company was officially opened this week in the Kanaker Zeytun community of Yerevan. Tolerate Denial of President Serge Sargisian attended the ribbon-cut - ting ceremony. The Genocide Sargisian toured the building and inquired about the capacity of the plant. They will eventually start YEREVAN (PanARMENIAN.Net) — The production of juices in the future, which will be first sitting of the state committee for the exported to neighboring countries. coordination of events dedicated to the According to Minister of Economy Tigran centennial of the Armenian Genocide Davtian, “this marks the entry of another took place here last week. The committee renowned international brand to Armenia.” is headed by President Serge Sargisian. At the meeting Sargisian thanked those present, including Artsakh President Charny, Kevorkian Bako Sahakian, Catholicos of All Receive Medals Armenians Karekin II and the Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia Aram I for YEREVAN (Radiolur) — Israeli Genocide scholar agreeing to participate. Israel Charny received the Presidential Award for Sargisian noted in his statement, bringing attention to the Armenian Genocide. although 96 years have passed since the Charny thanked the Armenian people and launch of the Genocide, the Armenian President Serge Sargisian for the award. He stated that the world must recognize the Armenian Genocide remains a subject for discussion.
    [Show full text]